1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff and its related costs from October 1, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2003, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant as the principal and the Plaintiff’s agent, stating that “The Defendant: (a) on May 26, 2003, determined and lent KRW 520 million to C and the Plaintiff on September 26, 2003 as the due date for repayment and at least 60% per annum; and (b) as the Plaintiff’s agent.”

(No. 17157, 2003, No. 17157, 2003, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). The loan certificate which caused the No. notarial deed of this case is written by the name of the plaintiff as joint and several sureties.

B. C drafted an authentic deed of debt repayment contract (quasi-loan for consumption) with the content that loans amounting to KRW 470 million as of August 10, 2009 and September 16, 2003, maturity of payment, August 10, 2009, and 12% per annum as of August 10, 2009.

(No. 662 of F, No. 6662 of 2009, hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds" of 2009.

Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to issue a seizure and collection order, which was issued against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012TTTT No. 201540, the third obligor, and three persons other than the Industrial Bank of Korea, and received the seizure and collection order, which was issued as KRW 534,235,152, Sept. 25, 2012.

hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order of this case"

(D) On October 1, 2012, the Defendant collected KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s bank account of the Industrial Bank of Korea on October 1, 2012 based on the instant order of seizure and collection. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 1, 2, and 3, Eul’s 16-1 and Eul’s 16-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The notarial deed of this case is made up by unauthorized Representation and is null and void. Accordingly, according to the seizure and collection order of this case issued based on this, the Defendant collected KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s deposit account and there is no legal ground for collection between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) The notarial deed of 2009 is related to the same claim as the notarial deed of this case.